
Vatican City, May 22, 2017 / 12:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- When Pope Francis was asked last week about his upcoming meeting with U.S. president Donald Trump, he made headlines for answering that he always tries to look for common ground.
Given that they have vocally disagreed on prominent issues in the past, what will the areas of shared agreement be?
The two are set to meet at the Vatican Wednesday, May 24, at 8:30 a.m., before Pope Francis’ weekly general audience.
President Trump arrives to Italy May 23 after stopping in both Saudi Arabia and Israel as part of his first international trip, which lasts nine days. He will also attend a NATO meeting in Brussels on May 25 and a G7 summit in Sicily on May 26.
Perhaps the most prominent area of disagreement between Trump and Francis is immigration.
During a Feb. 18, 2016, in-flight press conference, the Pope was asked to respond to Donald Trump’s immigration stand, particularly his threat to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Pope Francis responded saying “a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel.” However, he also said that he would “give the benefit of the doubt” to the political candidate.
One week prior, Trump had bashed Pope Francis as a “pawn” for the Mexican government and “a very political person” who does not understand the problems of the United States.
After the fact, then-Holy See spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi told Vatican Radio that the Pope’s comment “was never intended to be, in any way, a personal attack or an indication of how to vote” and had repeated a longstanding theme of his papacy: bridge-building.
During Trump’s time in office so far, U.S. bishops – who have Francis’ full backing on the issue – have been critical of Trump’s moves on immigration, criticizing the “ban” he implemented in his first week in office halting refugee admissions for 120 days – indefinitely for Syrian refugees – and temporarily banning visa permissions for people seeking entry to the United States from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
Trump and Francis also have very divergent opinions on climate change. Francis insisted on the need to protect creation in his environmental encyclical Laudato Si, saying problems such as global warming are caused by human activity.
The Pope gave his full support of the Paris Climate deal in 2015, sending Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, to the Nov. 30-Dec. 11 summit as his personal delegate to the gathering.
Trump later threatened to back out of the deal, but delayed the process until after the G7 summit he’ll be participating in this week.
While there will certainly be these and other points the two disagree on, there are several issues – other than their shared disregard for formal protocol – that could actually bring the two together.
These, to name a few, could be: pro-life issues, above all defense of the unborn; religious freedom, particularly for Christians in the Middle East; and the push for a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Since his campaign days, Trump has identified himself as pro-life, and even gave a shout-out to the Jan. 27 March for Life in Washington D.C. in a clip of an interview with David Muir of ABC.
U.S. Vice President Mike Pence became the first vice president to participate in the event, giving a keynote speech that stressed the “sanctity of life.”
Pro-life issues are likely to be at least one strong point of union for Trump and Francis, who has often spoken out against abortion and other concerns such as euthanasia, calling them in one audience in 2014 “sins against God.”
He has also encouraged the use of conscientious objection based on religious convictions, at one point describing it as “a basic human right.”
When it comes to the Trump administration, the pro-life issue remains a big issue for many U.S. Catholics, who praised the president’s reinstatement of the “Mexico City Policy,” which prohibits U.S. funding of non-government organizations that either promote or perform abortions through family-planning funds.
Trump was also lauded for his appointment of Niel Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left when Justice Antonin Scalia passed away last year. Gorsuch has been praised not only for his pro-life stance, but also for his commitment to religious freedom.
Pope Francis and Trump are also likely to share concern for persecuted Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.
Both Trump and Francis have called for greater solidarity and protection of persecuted Christians.
Francis has repeatedly spoken out on modern persecution, saying there are more martyrs today than in the early Church, with the “ecumenism of blood” having become a watermark phrase of his pontificate.
Trump himself said during his campaign that protecting persecuted Christians would be a priority. As evidence of this intent, at a May 11 summit on persecuted Christians U.S. Vice President Mike Pence said, “We’re with you, we stand with you,” and assured of both his and Trump’s prayers.
As with any political figure, questions still loom as to how much Trump will actually do, especially if differing political opinions get in the way. But overall, the topic will likely be a point of agreement and collaboration with the Vatican.
And while Trump’s previous rhetoric on Islam is something Francis would likely hastily disagree with, a recent shift in the president’s tone is something the Pope would certainly welcome.
During his election campaign, Trump called for the “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” and voicing his opinion that “Islam hates us.”
However, so far Trump’s rhetoric on Muslims has cooled during his first international trip abroad.
In his May 21 speech at the Arab Islamic American Summit in Ridyadh, Saudi Arabia, Trump avoided the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” referring instead to “the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires.”
“The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their country and, frankly, for their families and for their children,” Trump said, speaking to leaders from more than 50 predominantly Muslim countries.
The choice is “between two futures,” and “it is a choice America cannot make for you,” he said, adding that “a better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and drive out the extremists.”
He said he didn’t come to “lecture,” but to seek an end to terrorism and the beginning of peace in the Middle East region, noting that roughly 95 percent of terrorist victims are themselves Muslim.
The president said he wants a partnership with people who share the same “interests and values” as the U.S., calling Islam one of the “great faiths” with an “ancient heritage” that has served as the “cradle of civilization.”
In addition, Trump said the problem of terrorism is not “a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it…This is a battle between good and evil.”
The U.S. president’s more moderate tone on Islam, and indeed his unprecedented praise of some aspects of Muslim culture, is something Pope Francis would likely appreciate. The Pope has on multiple occasions warned against “Islamophobia,” insisting that not all Muslims are terrorist.
However, while the two might have new-found common ground in terms of how they refer to the Muslim community, at least in the public sphere, Francis will likely take issue with the weapons deal signed by Trump and Saudi King Salman.
The deal guarantees the Middle Eastern powerhouse some $350 billion in weapons over the next 10 years, with $110 billion going into effect immediately.
Francis has consistently called for an end to the arms trade, criticizing nations that sell weapons to warring countries in order to keep the conflicts going that line their own pockets. The Pope has used almost countless occasions to insist for an end to this “scourge.”
Saudi Arabia has also been criticized by many other Middle Eastern nations for funding ISIS, most directly through weapons sales.
But regardless of the deal, terrorism is sure to be one of the key topics discussed, and if Trump’s speech in Saudi Arabia is an indication of how he intends to address the issue from here on out, the two just might be able agree on this point.
After leaving Saudi Arabia, Trump flew to Israel for an official visit in a bid to cement Israeli ties and help move forward on a peace deal with Palestine. After arriving this morning, he voiced hopes to Israeli President Reuven Rivlin of a broader peace deal in the region.
“You have a great opportunity right now. Great feeling for peace throughout the Middle East. People have had enough of the bloodshed and the killing. I think we’re going to start see things starting to happen,” he told Rivlin.
In a speech to Israeli Prime Minister on the tarmac, Trump said: “We have before us a rare opportunity to bring security and stability and peace to this region and its people, defeating terrorism and creating a future of harmony, prosperity and peace, but we can only get there working together. There is no other way.”
In a previous encounter, Trump had asked Netenyahu to “hold off” on building more settlements in order help give space to further peace discussions in the region.
Earlier this month Trump met with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas at the White House, telling him that when it comes to a deal that pleases both parties, “we will get it done.”
The commitment to a two-state solution has been a longstanding priority for the Vatican, which was reinforced during a recent 2015 agreement between Palestine and the Holy See to promote religious freedom in the area.
Trump himself, however, has said his administration is not married to the idea of a two-state solution to the decades-long conflict, deviating from previous administrations on the issue.
While the Vatican and Trump might not agree on what exactly a peace deal looks like, it’s likely to be a shared concern.
Another topic that could be a point of union between the Pope and the president is human trafficking; not necessarily because Trump himself has been a hardliner on the issue, but more likely because the president’s daughter and high-profile adviser Ivanka Trump has made a commitment to it.
It is in this capacity that she is participating in each of the nine days of Trump’s first trip abroad as president, including the public portion of his meeting with Francis.
While in Italy, Ivanka is also set to meet with the Community of Sant’Egidio, a group often praised by Pope Francis for their work with the poor and refugees, to discuss putting an end to human trafficking.
During the meeting, the Ivanka is expected to meet with several women who are victims of trafficking, and discuss various ways in which the Church and the U.S. government can collaborate on the issue.
So while there are clearly many areas in which Pope Francis and Trump diverge, the meeting will likely find both men seeking to find common ground.
Francis himself during his May 13 press conference refrained from making a premature evaluation of Trump, saying “I never make a judgment of a person without listening to them. I believe that I should not do this.”
When the two finally meet, “things will come out, I will say what I think, he will say what he thinks, but I never, ever, wanted to make a judgment without hearing the person.”
Peace and friendship are things that can’t be forced, he said, explaining that they take daily effort and are “handcrafted.”
“Respect the other, say that which one thinks, but with respect, but walk together,” he said. Even if someone thinks differently, “be very sincere,” and respectful.
[…]
It’s time for a chat across ideological boundaries. And a chat that reaffirms LAW and yet is not burdened by HISTORY? Which law, and what history?
“…one can and must say simply that Marxism failed as an all-embracing interpretation of reality and a directive for action in history [!]. Its promise of freedom, equality and welfare for all was not verified by the empirical facts; it was shown to be false on the basis of political and economic facts. Although these assessments are correct, one would remain on a superficial level if one were to be content with them. Rather, we must take one step farther [today, synodally “walking together”?] and ask: But what is specifically false in this interpretation of the world and in the praxis [Stalinism, etc.] deduced from it? An exact observation of the events leads directly to the heart of the matter: the power of the spirit, the power of convictions, of suffering and hopes, has thrown down the existing structures. This means that the materialism which wanted to reduce the spirit to a mere consequence of material structures [the “law” of history!], to the mere superstructure of the economic system [!], has been brought down. But here we are no longer speaking only of the problem of Marxism and its world of states [now the paradisiacal China, Venezuela, North Korea, etc.]—we are speaking about ourselves. For materialism is a problem that affects us all; its breakdown compels all of us to an examination of conscience” (Ratzinger, “Turning Point for History,” Ignatius, 1994).
The FAMILY, too, is only a consequence of economic forces (F. Engels, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,” Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, originally Zurich 1884). What, then, of Natural Law?
So now, a dialogue with “concrete” Marxists–in what way distinguishable from Marxism (?)–and this theological riddle in the hands of Prefect Fernandez who seems skilled in only the rhetorical harmonization of contemporary “polarities,” since nothing deeper or more concrete (!) seems to be on the synodal roundtable.
Skilled and skilleted—”from the frying pan [the, yes, imperfect market economy] into the [perfect]fire”?
About any “chat across ideological boundaries,” the presumed “harmonization of polarities” (both my wording), and the fallacy (!) of any third way between Capitalism and Socialism, the Catholic Social Teaching is not a middling third way, but rather the “negation of ideology”.
So, in regard to the noted rule of LAW (Pope Francis), and from a predecessor who lived through the (erased?) HISTORY of Communism and who wrote on the threshold of the 21st Century, the following clarification from St. John Paul II—when asked whether capitalism was the path for a post-Soviet eastern Europe and beyond:
“The answer is obviously complex. If by ‘capitalism’ is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector [papal caricature: “invisible hand”, “finance and market mechanisms”?], then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a ‘business economy,’ ‘market economy’ or simply ‘free economy.’ But if by ‘capitalism’ is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a STRONG JURIDICAL FRAMEWORK which places it at the service of HUMAN FREEDOM IN ITS TOTALITY, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the CORE OF WHICH IS ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS, then the reply is certainly negative” (John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, CA n. 44, caps added).
Without diminishing the value of grounded dialogue (more than a flat-table synodal “process”?), what more is the perennial and incarnational Catholic Church bringing to its engagement with Marxists/Marxism, in addition to only a call for “poetry” and “creativity” (https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2024/january/documents/20240110-dialop.html). More than a polarity, the Catholic Social Teaching “belongs to the field . . . of theology and particularly moral theology” (CA n. 55; Rerum Novarum n. 153).
Peter. This may well be, reading with moderately jaundiced eyes an adroit overture by His Holiness to expand the cooperative success of his Vatican China policy to include the universal Church.
Humor aside, admittedly, this pontificate has attracted ranking churchmen who have an affinity with Marxist socialist doctrine. We’re aware of high praise for the China regime being touted as a near perfect assimile of Christianity. Indeed there is that resemblance of communal equanimity inclusive of goods. His Holiness has expressed as much in his social doctrine, we recall his universal salary proposal, also his consistent appeal for the poor which is the perceived good of Marxism, a tenet of the Gospels. The difference is this pontificate minimizes the moral dimension as revealed by Christ in favor of a Marxist type of communal justice.
And it is hard to avoid wondering if his minimalizing of personal moral dimensions and heroic responses of personal virtue to heal fragile human woundedness or combat darkest humanity, inspired in ways only accessible through religion, from divinely endowed graces and sacraments, might be due to a dearth of authentic faith in whatever vestigial religious sense does inspire or fails to inspire his mind and soul. Marxists have never hidden their absolutist faith, and conceits, in elitist ordered social engineering, murderously intolerant of counterrevolutionaries. A faith in an eventual restructuring of the Church and the world to eradicate all evil often seems to govern Francis’ publicly expressed values, no matter how he might use prepared, perfunctory Christian rhetoric in Angelus addresses that would imply the imperfectability of the human condition, short of Our Lord’s return, were he to consider the meaning of the actual words.
Thanks, dear Fr Peter Morello PhD.
Any political or social system that cancels or curtails the freedom of human persons to choose between right & wrong ethics is a system that opposes what God is doing in this Universe & World.
God, the source of all, is the freely choosing Spirit who always autonomously chooses merciful self-giving love, right-ethical holiness, & perfectly just goodness.
Humans are the only living beings that we know of that share the capacity to choose godly right ethics, or devilishly wrong ethics. We are all EChOs – ethically choosing organisms. It is a maximally serious matter to be a person “in God’s image & likeness” – the opportunities are truly spectacular, the dangers really dreadful.
When militia, politicians, and other social managers (including AI) coerce or dictate in such a way as to diminish or remove the possibility for individual ethical choice, they quench the image of God in us.
Regimented societies have a certain appeal to demi-god rulers and even, tragically, to many who simply want to live a simple life according to the ‘rules of the system’.
This is de-humanizing because it suppresses the freely ethically choosing image of God in us, our source of personhood and our resonance with Heaven.
May God preserve us from Marx, Putin, Xi Jin Ping, ‘Pope’ Francis, and all their like.
Ever in the freedom won for us by Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
“Pope Francis this week called for cooperation between Christians and Marxists as a way to achieve greater “dialogue” and help in the search for the “common good.”
Yes, because 20th Century history has given us ample evidence that Marxists have people’s best interests in mind 🙄. Francis, please just stop talking.
All sorts of useful idiots were conducting “dialogues” with the Marxists: PAX in Poland, Pacem in Terris in Czechoslovakia, etc. Under Paul VI, Catholic-Marxist dialogue went on steroids under the leadership of Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli, a lunacy that did not stop until somebody who had real experience of Marxists — Karol Wojtyla — ended it. By then, the Hungarian hierarchy was largely a branch wing of the Hungarian Communist Party, the Czechoslovak sees were vacant, Uniate Catholics in Russia abandoned, etc. Now, the same mindset pursues this policy vis-a-vis Beijing, even though it is clear it is yielding nothing. One wishes Francis would stop his incessant “dialogues” and get down to doctrine (as it exists, not as he might wish it to be).
A revealing history! Thanks, dear John Grondelski.
Do you think this leopard can change his spots . . ?
I think Fidel Cadtro needs help harvesting his sugar cane crop. I’ve volunteered the name of one Jorge Bergoglio as sumpathetic to the cause.
I was so tempted to quip, when was the last time any Jesuit did an honest day’s work? Then my guardian angel kicked me and reminded me of the good Jesuits I met when I did some amount (not enough) of missionary work in the third world.
It’s great to see the pope getting past “rigid ideologies,” isn’t it? Ideologies that don’t starve millions, put opposing voices in gulags, build iron curtains to keep people from fleeing oppression, suppress religion, on and on. Marxism has such a stellar resume of greater dialogue and search for the greater good.
This pontiff continues to astonish.
O Lord, how long?
I’m getting confused.
Didn’t Pope Francis recently say that you weren’t supposed to sup with the devil?
Yes, but he was referring to other people, not himself 🙄.
(Sigh.)
Why am I not surprised?
One hundred innocents murdered over the past century isn’t enough to show what a bad idea this is?
How could someone this stupid have tied the Church into such knots?
I meant one hundred *million* innocents murdered over the past hundred years.
Sorry.
Actually, historians have now revised the figure closer to 140 million. And this does not include the aborted babies.
I am increasingly of the opinion that Pope Francis is not stupid at all. He and those he elevated to be cardinals know exactly what they are doing. They are working according to the plan worked out by the modernists at Vatican II to make the Church more compatible with the spirit of the modern age. A spirit directly contrary to the teachings of Jesus and they will fail. As Pope Benedict predicted we will become a much smaller Church, as many will decide they don’t need the Church at all. They will not see them selves as sinners in need of salvation.
Mr. Snow,
You get the BINGO prize! The Pope and his cardinals know EXACTLY what they are doing. Just as former president Obama, upon becoming a US President, advised that “America is about to undergo a “fundamental” change”, so to is Francis implementing fundamental changes with the other men who seem to be acting as politicians in the Vatican. Yes, they know exactly what they are doing, and perhaps, Archbishop Vigano has it right that the Swiss Guards at the Vatican should arrest the Pope and his seditious and heretical cohorts and remove them from the Lord’s Holy of Holies here on earth.
JCALAS!
“Dialogue” often leads to compromise. As in, you say 2+2=4; I say 2+2=6; so the correct answer must be that 2+2=5.
Someday, will we have St. Marx, patron of murderous ideologies? Perhaps there will be St. Pollyanna, patroness of dangerously naive dialogue?
As a Jesuit, this meeting is like the Pope talking to himself.
The Christian and Marxist conceptions of the common good are diametrically opposed. We should dismiss the Holy Father’s call for cooperation with groups and governments who have murdered well over 100 million in the last century and are determined to finish the job. The ongoing betrayal of Catholics and others who continue to suffer vicious persecution under Communist regimes like those in China and Nicaragua is one of the many and most serious scandals that will be this papacy’s legacy.
I’m already imagining what the “anti-everything-Francis” squads will say about this. I am personally hoping we can see a rejection of capitalism (state sponsored usury) as well as Marxism and a renewed interest in Solidarism. It is a real shame how most people have no idea that there is another, CATHOLIC way to run an economic system.
The Pontiff Francis is himself “not burdened by the history” of the sadistic, mass-murdering Marxist ideology, because he doesn’t identify with the millions of souls slaughtered in the name of his political hero, the psycho-sexual sociopath Karl Marx.
What’s important to “his purpose in life” is that homicidal, sociopath, anti-Christ tyrants, like General Secretary Xi, are preferred to to ascend to establishment power on every continent.
This is the gruesome reality signified by the two photo-stunts staged by the Pontiff Francis, when he first received his gift of the Hammer-and-Sickle-Crucifix, and subsequently orchestrated the worship of the idol Pachamama: what he reveres is not Christ crucified, but the empire that built the cross used to crucify him.
So the Pontiff Francis now presides over the “marriage-he-made-in-hell,” having collaborated with his longtime friend McCarrick, the sociopath-sodomic-sex-abuser, to sign the Pontiff’s “secret accord” with “their one, true god,” the Communist Party in China.
And now the self-identified progressive church apologists, in alliance with self-identified “moderate” and even “conservative” church apologists, have the opportunity to don the costume of the neo-ultramontanists, and sheepishly bleat out their message of the day, that the Church is not utterly polluted, but instead, it is “indefectible.”
But in battle against those voices is the Lion of Judah, the Word Made Flesh, Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, who is the head of the Body of Christ, and supreme Judge of the steward.
Pope Francis can’t quit talking.He has the condition known as compulsive talking. I think it’s a mental and or emotional illness.
It called loggorheia. It’s a chronic condition in his case.
Correct.
Silence is of little value to him. Deep thought, not his strong point, ever. Only the endless nonsense of jesuit-speak.
The denial of The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), is the source of all heresy including the modernist Marxist heresy of the atheist materialist over population alarmist globalists whose end goal is the objectification of the human person, as they designate the State to be their god of tyranny.
Shall we now ask God to Bless this tyranny even though such tyranny is anathema?
Surely if we choose to have that which is not Holy Blessed we become accursed.
Catholicism is Holy while Marxism, which can never be reconciled with Christ, is not.
Didn’t our Immaculate Mother warn us about this at Fatima?
A better world will only come when nations embrace the Catholic faith and proclaim Christ as King. It will not come from atheistic ideologies or compromising with them. Our Lady of Fatima warned us.
This is actually quite terrifying. I think human history gives us a darn pretty good idea of what Marxism does to governments and the people who are governed under Marxism. God help us.
“The common good” is not at all what most people assume it is. The truism, “a rising tide lifts all boats” shows a particular element (in this case water) affecting all that it touches, but just because all boats are lifted doesn’t mean that the water has advanced the common good, rather it has only facilitated a [universal] composite of particular goods.
Moving from boats to people, just because a particular political act has increased prosperity (and of course socialism hasn’t a track record proving anything of the sort) that also would be an amalgam of individual goods—the common good hasn’t been affected in any way. Even the building of a dam or a road or a reservoir for the benefit of those living nearby only multiplies individual goods.
The common good has to do with the ability of individuals to advance towards perfection, and thus economic questions have little to nothing to do with it. Our perfection consists in holiness, a deepening relationship with God, the proliferation of the sacraments, and freedom to choose the good. (Charles de Koninck has a lifetime of work dedicated to explaining this.)
Moreover, the suggestion that this project will allow peace to “grow from below,” beginning on the human level, woefully misunderstands grace as a gift from above, and that peace is “the tranquility of order, (Augustine) which again requires a turning to God and rejection of materialistic solutions to spiritual problems.
You can’t mix oil and water no matter how much you talk about it. Dialogue in this case is only good in clarifying both positions and acknowledging the impossibility of reconciliation. From there mutual agreement on respecting rights of both parties to live separately in peace could POSSIBLY be worked out. But this is highly unlikely long term due to our sinful nature.
Marxism is an ideology of building a perfect world through the murders of millions of innocents. That poor old man who envisions a dialogue with satanic evil is either uneducated or demented.
With a head stuck in the sixties this individual has us doing déjà vu all over again? This is pitiful, pathetic and scandalous. One would ascribe it to geriatric diminishment but he operates with a staff of the equally ideological malcontent who are not quite as advanced in the life journey.
Marxism has a trail of corpses behind it far, far longer than National Socialism and it continues its holocaust at this very moment. Our Chinese brothers and sisters in the Faith have been sold into its slavery by the present Vatican administration. In all honesty, this pronouncement actually makes the recent endorsement of blessings for sodomites look quite tame.
No one is undermining the Bergoglian enterprise with any honest critique. It is doing it to itself and boldly.
One wonders if Francis’ embrace of the road to serfdom stems from his resentment of market economies having to regularly impose sensible terms for bailing out his persistently failed country.
A financial version of the classic definition of insanity is buying Argentine government bonds and expecting it won’t default on them again.
A theological version might be trying to unite Catholicism with Marxism and expecting the combination not to be a betrayal of Catholic principles.
I say let the global Marxists send financial support to the Vatican and the real Cathokics in the Church use their dobations to support well-documented orthodox efforts regarding charity.
Maybe a visit to the iron law of oligarchy is needed in order to understand what went wrong with Marxism and what goes wrong with most human ideologies and what will always go unless one is grounded in humility and under the Lordship of a higher authority. The RCC learned very early in its history that an oligarchic structure was needed. Is the RCC now seriously trying to change that to a more democratic ‘synodality’? Is that the ‘why’ for the new (well more open) attraction to Marxism. Hmm. OK, how about Francis present another document comparing the lives of Christ and Marx. Marx was a horror especially to his own family. By their fruits you shall know them. The only reason I can think of for Francis wanting to ‘dialogue’ with Marxists is that he probably does really believe that religion is merely an opiate, the dispensing of which is carried out by his men in black, in order to pacify the masses from an otherwise meaningless existence and from questioning the oligarchs and those who seek to control them. Sometimes, often actually, it has been so. But Jesus, in righteous anger, overturned that mentality (in the temple) – he didn’t flirt with it or try to incorporate it into his teachings. Just a few thoughts.
OK, dialogue and seeking to understand other beliefs is always good but we’ve done this already in relation to Marxism (Liberation Theology???) and it indeed has become the co-foundation for the social justice movement in the Church. The difference between the two (Christ and Marx (besides their whole life example) is the means of achieving justice especially in regard to those who well, don’t cooperate – what do we do with those pests? (We can excommunicate them I suppose both spiritually and physically – cut them off paint them as evil). So, why these headlines? To make the world like the RCC more? Yes, there are sociological similarities between what most perceive as a Marxist approach (distribution of wealth) and the first Christian communities; yes, there’s a similarity there, but really, there’s not a lot more.
Because of my research into clergy sexual abuse, misconduct, activity, crimes, and Francis’s approach to especially adult victims of the likes of Randy Rupnik the Misconductor, which I am quite sure now is founded on some weird perception that these victims simply should not feel like victims and only do so because they have an approach to sex of someone ‘still in diapers’ and, therefore, it is they who are actually in the wrong. I cannot fathom that he does what he does otherwise. I really have come to believe that Francis believes that Catholicism is or should be merely a psycho-social humanism, a philosophy, able to be changed with debate and ‘new discoveries’ – very Jesuit. Nah, not for me or billions of others – makes no sense without a higher divinity beyond the mere wording of concepts God, Trinity, Christ, which I’ve come to think Francis has become a master at (wording), using all his Jesuitical training and prowess. He seems like a nice chap, though, doing all the nice justice things. And I often hear him talking, preaching, and then think it must be me who has it wrong.
We read: “The only reason I can think of for Francis wanting to ‘dialogue’ with Marxists is that he probably does really believe that religion is merely an opiate…”
I do disagree, but just for fun, over half century ago and as a student before one doctoral seminar in interdisciplinary urban and regional planning, I pulled the screen down about one foot after chalking atop the green board “planning is the opiate of the intellectuals.”
For writing space and midway through the class the screen was lifted, and was met with a long and blank silence at both the front of the class and among all the students. I realized that no one in the group even recognized what was being parsed. An eraser fixed the cognitive dissonance and we moved collectively into the future, some would say a bit like rhetorically erasing the magisterium.
Well, Peter, I do sort of say that (that Francis probably really does believe that religion is merely an opiate) with a little smile, sort of how I respond when people use that saying, “Is the Pope Catholic”? Hmm…. But my conclusions come from, yes, a very deep cynicism which has developed because of my insights into the minds and politics of the clergy or more so, the hierarchy, and the scales sort of fell away; my naivety was very traumatically dissolved; and all I saw before me where men who weren’t just sinners – I can cope with that – but more so, men who when push came to shove, really didn’t care about those they said they cared for; really didn’t believe in the Gospels, and what they taught us; holiness; prayer; purity; none of it, and for some not even God. But, they had found a lifestyle in which they were so well catered for, so why leave? They don’t really practice poverty in any meaningful way (I do, or have to not the least becasue of the effects of abuse), they in turn have all their needs catered for; obedience has come to mean more or less nothing, but I need to practice ‘obedience’ because of my committment to my wife and family; and as for cchastity, well, the research suyggests its a myth – so easy for clergy to get sex on the side. HOWEVER, when this is exposed, they have a huge institution of other men who when it comes to sex and relationships are for the most, stuck in an adolescent mentality anyway so they just don’t get it, and so are ready to defned them like Francis has done with Rupnik, (this is also clericalism by the way), and who have so much money and power with which to do this. As such, generally, any accusations are dismissed by clergy who have little sense of the damage that has been caused – to have this would be too convicting – as well as a general attitude of the flock that those on the noble journey of celibacy are more readily believed over those who it is too often believed, must have tempted them off that journey.
So, yes, I really have come to believe that the RCC and its leaders are mere politicians and sociologists but fully understand the power of spiritual language not because they actually really do believe what they say but because they believe people need to believe it, so this is what they give them – ‘spiritual’ opioids. The only thing that makes me doubt my conclusion here, is Frank’s fight against the traditional Catholics about whom many might say are fully addicted to a certain type of opiate. And then I came across this little gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t02XoELK1Xo
Dear Stephen, thank you for your insightful analyses of our dire situation.
Thanks for the brilliant Cardinal Sheen clip; I’ve never appreciated a prophet in action as much as by this.
Stay strong in The Love of The LORD; blessings from marty
An act of mutual contradiction! History tells us that such cooperation is an illogical proposition! The Marxist leftists hate the unborn in particular and are at the forefront of ensuring that they perish! Where Is there even a hint of basic logic in what the Pope is asking?
With all the questionable goings on in the Vatican finances, shouldn’t the Vatican be working on its own problems to establish its competency to speak?
How long before even the secular media start to wonder if Francis has rocks in his head?
Marxists cannot be taken lightly. As human beings, Marxists have a lot to contribute in enriching fellow mortals to realize their true and full potential.
And, brain washing camps, are a great marxist tool to do that!
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free!
An absolutely ridiculous and shameful comment. I think the 500 million bodycount argues against that. There is nothing that Marxists say that believers need to hear.